Lance wrote:
> Not one 'pretends to understand the intended meaning
> of these passages as well as Jesus does', even with the
> Holy Spirit. I do believe that this is the acknowledgement
> that David sought from me just yesterday.
No, Lance, this is not the acknowledgment that I was seeking. I wanted you
to answer the question of whether or not the tutoring experience with Jesus
would enable this person to understand this passage better than a highly
educated professor of theology that you respect.
Lance wrote:
> Question to David as I anticipate a 'warning'
> to be issued:
Warning? Why?
Lance wrote:
> Should you exclude yourself from this statement YOU
> made then, kindly offer an explanation for its non-application
> to yourself.
There are a lot of people who might be excluded, and the answer to this will
be readily apparent if we can progress in steps. Until we are tracking
together in our thought process, it would not add to our mutual
understanding to answer this question right now. Knowledge builds upon
concepts, precept upon precept, and steps cannot be skipped. It is kind of
like explaining a mathematical proof without showing the steps needed to get
there. Skipping steps would only add to the confusion.
Please note that a VERY IMPORTANT consideration here that has not been
agreed upon is whether or not the understanding that Jesus is the Messiah is
infallible. If we cannot agree among ourselves that this truth is
infallible, and then when we teach this truth we are teaching something
infallible, I do not see how we can proceed. Thus far, this issue has been
sidestepped because of the Christian Indoctrination that nobody but Jesus is
infallible in understanding and teaching.
Lance wrote:
> Question to the co-moderators: Argumentum
> ad Hominem is one of the fallacies in the study
> of logic. Perhaps it has no place on TT. Why not,
> for Judy's sake if for no other, switch to the Scriptures
> as a guideline for conduct on TT? Surely we esteem
> the 'truth of Scripture' over the 'truth of logic'? If we're
> gonna criticize the employment of theology as a legitimate
> discipline we must conclude, logically of course, that this
> atheistically rooted discipline must not serve to govern us.
Logic is not "atheistically rooted." It is rooted in the Logos, in Christ
himself.
It would be great if we could just say, "let Scripture govern us" or better
yet, "let love govern us." The problem is that we do not all agree about
what love is or how it acts. We do not all agree on what Scripture teaches.
The reason for the ad hom rule is to try and have just one agreement to
govern our discussion, that we will address the message rather than the
messenger.
If you examine the Scriptures themselves, or examine what love is, both
would lead you to accept the idea that the discussion should center on what
is said rather than who says it. Whether it is praise or criticism, it does
not matter. We would do better in regards to the purposes of this forum, to
discuss the issues being raised rather than the one who raises the issue.
We also should not focus on why someone raises an issue over the issue
itself.
Lance wrote:
> I have every confidence that David & Perry will take
> this matter under advisement as I perceive the 'L-word'
> to be far more reprehensible than the 'D-word'.
When you say, "L-word," do you mean "liberal"? When you say "D-word" do you
mean "damn"?
Assuming such to be the case:
I would agree with you that the term liberal should not be thrown around as
an epithet against others. However, neither word is banned from the list.
It is all in how you use it. If someone is talking about how sinners are
damned to hell, that is acceptable. However, if one uses words like "hell"
and "damn" as curse words or expletives, that is not acceptable. In like
manner, if someone is talking about the danger of liberalism, that is fine,
but if one is simply maligning others on the list by cursing at them with
the word ("you liberals!"), that is not helpful. Probably everyone has
crossed this line to some extent, and latitude often is given or it slips
by. That's why we should all work to moderate ourselves in addition to
having a moderator. We all are, after all, accountable to each other.
Nevertheless, just because such slips by from time to time does not mean it
is encouraged or acceptable. If you have some problem and you don't want to
nudge us away from inflammatory language yourself, write the moderator
privately and say, "this post is attacking me and not the subject being
discussed. Please address it. Thank you." Then you can post on the
subject and ignore the ad hom elements.
I admit that I have addressed ad hom elements too much myself these last few
weeks. I will try to do better about leaving that to the moderator.
Peace be with you.
David Miller.
----------
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know
how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
